If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Of course he does but that doesn't make him elite, using that logic every starter is elite on Baltimore.

I guess, I'm not really a fan of individual players being elite b/c the ones discussed are usually the premiere positions (QB, WR, LB, etc). Baltimore as a whole is right up there as being an elite team. Playoffs the last 5 years with back to back AFC Title Game appearances with an advance and win in the SB certainly makes the case.

Next year might be different post-Ray Lewis, Ed Reed, and potential others so we'll see.

I don't like to use the word elite unless the team has won a Super Bowl, but I would consider Atl one of the better teams in the NFC. They have made the playoffs 4 out of the last 5 seasons and won at least 11 games 3 out of 4 of those seasons. The other two they won 9 and 10 games. I don't think you can just look at a specific round a team makes it to in the playoffs, becasue you have to consider who they lost to, who they beat, and how they won if they advanced. Atl was 1 and done in 3 out of their last 4 playoff apps, but look at who they lost to.

AZ in 2008 who was a couple of minutes away from winning the Super Bowl that year.
GB in 2010 who won the Super Bowl.
The Giants in 2011 who also won the Super Bowl.

Had Alt beat mediocre teams allowing them to advance further in the playoffs before losing to one of those teams that made it to the Super Bowl, it wouldn't change my opinion of the type of team Atl is. To me, it is not only regular season success, but who you play in the playoffs and how you won or lost.

So, yes I would consider Atl one of the better teams in the NFC based on their sustained regular season success and based on who they lost to in the playoffs.

What is sustained success to you? Do you really think that making it to the divisional round makes a team elite?

Atlanta can't possibly be an elite team since they haven't made it to the Super Bowl. If you were to call them elite, what is Green Bay then? Or the Giants? More elite? That isn't a 'thing'.

Atlanta can't possibly be an elite team since they haven't made it to the Super Bowl. If you were to call them elite, what is Green Bay then? Or the Giants? More elite? That isn't a 'thing'.

I never called them elite. Junc did. I said:

I don't like to use the word elite unless the team has won a Super Bowl, but I would consider Atl one of the better teams in the NFC.

I consider the teams that consistently compete in the playoffs the better teams. The teams that have won a Super Bowl and have / had, or continue to compete in the playoffs are elite. What I mean by that is a team could have been consistently competing in the playoffs before their Super Bowl win and I would consider them elite. I don't have to wait to see if Bal continues to compete in the playoffs to call them elite, since they have already competed the previous 4 years. They had been in at least the divisional round the previous 4 years and made 2 AFCC games. That combined with their Super Bowl win makes them elite.

The Giants are the only exception to my rule. Winning 2 Super Bowls in 5 seasons makes them elite.

I consider the teams that consistently compete in the playoffs the better teams. The teams that have won a Super Bowl and have / had, or continue to compete in the playoffs are elite. What I mean by that is a team could have been consistently competing in the playoffs before their Super Bowl win and I would consider them elite. I don't have to wait to see if Bal continues to compete in the playoffs to call them elite, since they have already competed the previous 4 years. They had been in at least the divisional round the previous 4 years and made 2 AFCC games. That combined with their Super Bowl win makes them elite.

The Giants are the only exception to my rule. Winning 2 Super Bowls in 5 seasons makes them elite.

I didn't mean you personally, I meant those in general. Your definition of elite is the same as mine for the most part. Winning a SB is the first step in being an elite team b/c otherwise what's the point? Finishing the season without a trophy like the other 31 teams doesn't make a team elite for trying.

I didn't mean you personally, I meant those in general. Your definition of elite is the same as mine for the most part. Winning a SB is the first step in being an elite team b/c otherwise what's the point? Finishing the season without a trophy like the other 31 teams doesn't make a team elite for trying.

That is why I don't like to use the word elite for teams that have not won a Super Bowl. They need to be distinguished from the teams that have won one. Those teams are the truly elite teams. I do think the teams that consistently compete should also be distinguished from the teams that don't, even if both haven't won a Super Bowl. We can talk about which teams have been the better teams during a certain period of time, or who we think will continue to be the better teams without calling them elite. You and I (and I think most people) reserve that term for the select few that have won a Super Bowl, and I think that fits the term nicely.

Flacco won the MVP in the super bowl! There isnt anyone on those Jet teams that could come close to his performance let alone compare the jets team to him!

The Jets AFCC game loses are past history...no one remembers them. Flacco is a winner!!!

yes, if the jets won the SB it's impossible anyone could win the MVP

Flacco didn't deserve the MVP and even if he did it doesn't make him elite.

Originally Posted by The New Guy

I don't like to use the word elite unless the team has won a Super Bowl, but I would consider Atl one of the better teams in the NFC. They have made the playoffs 4 out of the last 5 seasons and won at least 11 games 3 out of 4 of those seasons. The other two they won 9 and 10 games. I don't think you can just look at a specific round a team makes it to in the playoffs, becasue you have to consider who they lost to, who they beat, and how they won if they advanced. Atl was 1 and done in 3 out of their last 4 playoff apps, but look at who they lost to.

AZ in 2008 who was a couple of minutes away from winning the Super Bowl that year.
GB in 2010 who won the Super Bowl.
The Giants in 2011 who also won the Super Bowl.

Had Alt beat mediocre teams allowing them to advance further in the playoffs before losing to one of those teams that made it to the Super Bowl, it wouldn't change my opinion of the type of team Atl is. To me, it is not only regular season success, but who you play in the playoffs and how you won or lost.

So, yes I would consider Atl one of the better teams in the NFC based on their sustained regular season success and based on who they lost to in the playoffs.

What is sustained success to you? Do you really think that making it to the divisional round makes a team elite?

the div rd you are final 4 in your conference so that's a big deal. I can see the Atl thing the other way b/c they haven't won, at the very least I would consider them an NFC elite team.

Originally Posted by PhinzN703

I guess, I'm not really a fan of individual players being elite b/c the ones discussed are usually the premiere positions (QB, WR, LB, etc). Baltimore as a whole is right up there as being an elite team. Playoffs the last 5 years with back to back AFC Title Game appearances with an advance and win in the SB certainly makes the case.

Next year might be different post-Ray Lewis, Ed Reed, and potential others so we'll see.

Nope, so that means it is impossible? the Red Sox had never won a WS in my lifetime until 2004, the Cards had never been to a SB until 2008. Nothing is impossible, heck the dolphin may even win a playoff game this Century at some point

That is why I don't like to use the word elite for teams that have not won a Super Bowl. They need to be distinguished from the teams that have won one. Those teams are the truly elite teams. I do think the teams that consistently compete should also be distinguished from the teams that don't, even if both haven't won a Super Bowl. We can talk about which teams have been the better teams during a certain period of time, or who we think will continue to be the better teams without calling them elite. You and I (and I think most people) reserve that term for the select few that have won a Super Bowl, and I think that fits the term nicely.

A team that hasn't even gotten to the SB cannot be elite. Let's say the Ravens are now elite. How can the Falcons also be elite when they haven't accomplished what the Ravens just did?

the div rd you are final 4 in your conference so that's a big deal. I can see the Atl thing the other way b/c they haven't won, at the very least I would consider them an NFC elite team.

Only 6 teams qualify for the playoffs in each conference. If winning 1 playoff game makes you elite, then you might as well say you are elite if you make the playoffs. You are final 6 in your conference. The Dolphins made the divisional round 3 straight years from 1998 to 2000. You really think they were elite? How can you use the same term for a team that got blown out in the divisional round as teams that got to, and won Super Bowls? Those are the elite teams. The other teams can be the better teams, but certainly not elite.